I have this actually. This isn't a translation of the Peshitta Gospels, but of the Old Syriac Sinaitic Palimpsest, which many scholars believe to be older than the Peshitta. The mainstream position is heavily disputed among us Aramaic primacists. I agree with those who say that the Sinaitic palimpsest and the Curetonian Gospels are merely Aramaic versions produced by enemies of the Church of the East.

They were most likely the work of Rabbula, a Bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Edessa, who declared that all Christians in his territory should be given Ewangelion d' Mepharreshe ("The Separated Gospel"). This is what the Curetonian and Sinaitic Palimpsest Gospels call themselves, and it seems like the Curetonian is a revision of the Sinaitic Palimpsest. Rabbula called the "Old Syriac" this in order to distinguish it from Tatian's Diatessaron, which is a 2nd century Aramaic Gospel harmony that matches up with the Peshitta. The Diatessaron was called Ewangelion d' Damkhalte ("The Mixed Gospel"). The Syriac Orthodox Church has a history of editing the Peshitta or replacing it before coming back to it. They are Monophysites (they believe Jesus is not human, but God only), while the Church of the East believes in the deity and humanity of Christ.

Yes, kind of expensive. Georgias press is an expensive place for most of their books. This set is actually $150 per volume but the first 100 to sign up will lock in the $75 price. Since one is only committed six volumes only, I went ahead and signed up. I figure they will only ship about two or three per year so that's not too bad.

He's been challenged and refuted here on the forum over the years, for some of his wrong assumptions. For instance, Steve doesn't seem to believe the Aramaic text of the Peshitta is any older than the late 3rd or early 4th century, and that the dialect it's given in is older than the early 3rd century. Which of course is mere assumption on his part, with no proof to back it up.

The presence of the Diatessaron in the mid 2nd century, which was used in the Aramaic speaking parishes of the East, and the fact that The Church of the East has existed since the mid 1st century and have had their copy of The Bible in their Aramaic language all along. He seems to think the Aramaic speaking Church of the East and their Aramaic Scriptures didn't exist in the 1st to the early 3rd century.

A Church of the East Bishop was present at the 1st Nicaean Council in 325 A.D. and to say that he and all his fellow Aramaic speakings Christians in the Eastern lands didn't have a Bible in their language at that late a date, is bizarre.

He hypothesizes that Jesus spoke in a very different dialect, called "Galilean", of which there is no evidence that He either spoke in it, or that the Apostles ever wrote anything in such a dialect, and if they did, that it was that different to what is found in the Aramaic NT today.

Its really all quite imaginary and based on a number of unfounded assumptions.

It has been shown that what is found untranslated in the Greek texts, were Jesus is speaking in Aramaic, that it matches near identical with what is found in the Peshitta's text.

I've asked him to show if there would be anything significantly different from what Jesus would have said in a supposed 1st century "Galilean" dialect of Aramaic, than what we have recorded in the Aramaic NT of the Peshitta as seen in the 5th century manuscripts, and he hasn't given anything.

Its really odd too, that his website and work at aramaicnt.org is called "The Aramaic New Testament", yet what he has displayed there is only the WEB translation, which is an English translation that comes from the Greek text, and where he has some words switched out in it's text....of what he believes are Jesus' "Galilean dialect", which are as well translated from the Greek text, I think, rather than the Aramaic text of the Peshitta.

I've asked him to explain that, and how it is that what he has there amounts in any way to The Aramaic New Testament, and he has decided not to answer, so far.

Steve, if you are reading this, please explain that.

If Steve had any actual evidence or any manuscripts to show that The NT ever existed in this "Galilean dialect", where it could be seen that his ideas are correct, and that it would make anything more clear as to what is written in the NT, then I would be glad to consider it. But, I say we are on very solid ground when it comes to the text of The Aramaic NT of The Peshitta.

Thanks. I believe Lamsa stated Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic. He stated when the girl pointed Peter out and stated his speech gave him away, that's because he spoke Galilean Aramaic as opposed to the Palestinian Jewish Aramaic spoken in the area. Quite a few scholars support this as well, I believe.

It was indeed a somewhat different Aramaic dialect in some respects than what was spoken in Judea, but, it wasn't such that it couldn't have been understood. And we just don't really know which dialect they actually spoke....It was more an accent thing though, like in our English language variations, where we can all understand each other, though some of us sound kinda funny at times with certain words.

Look at the words and phrases which Jesus is recorded as saying in the Greek text though, which are untranslated, and you will see that they match up with what is found in the 5th century Peshitta manuscripts. And I believe, as Shamasha Paul Younan does, that Jesus and his Disciples most likely were quite fluent in a number of dialects, as they went out and traveled around and preached and taught all over the whole region and seem to have been understood very well.

In any case...the text is the same as to its content and its message. And that is what is important.

I don't much about Paul Younan other than he's fluent in Assyrian. I don't know anything about his theological education or his biblical scholarship. I do know his introduction to his Aramaic translation is exactly the same as the introduction to The Way's introduction to their interlinear works, if I remember correctly. That's okay, I guess.

I agree with you about the various Aramaic dialects. A Bostonian could understand a person from Houlka, Mississippi, but would struggle to some extent but would understand enough to carry on a conversation. I do accept from biblical and theological scholars that there was in fact a Galilean dialect. CoE and SOC officials have confirmed this to me as well. But as you say, "content" and "message" are what's important.

Always appreciate the dialogue. This is a very good and informative forum and I thank you all for allowing me to be a part of it.